[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8052-H8055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
                       MORAL BREAKDOWN OF AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about several 
issues which have either not been covered enough lately or not covered 
in the appropriate way.
  The first thing I would like to talk about is the loan forgiveness 
program and the recent change in the law increasing public loan 
forgiveness.
  When my constituents back home ask me, what is the biggest problem? I 
say, well, we certainly have problems with the economy, we certainly 
have problems with education, we certainly have problems with crime--
but I say the biggest problem is we are in a moral breakdown in this 
country.
  I would like to address the way the loan forgiveness program and 
public loan forgiveness is changing America, I think, for the worst.
  The first thing I would like to address is the fact that this 
institution has apparently felt that you are a lot better off, or it 
should be much easier for you to have your loan forgiven if you work 
for a nonprofit organization or a governmental entity.
  Now, whenever I go around my district, the manufacturers, the 
farmers, a couple of big insurance companies, they are all looking for 
more people to work. But the message out of Washington is, don't work 
for business, which, after all, is the engine that really makes our 
country go around. It shows kind of a hatred for manufacturers, a 
hatred for agriculture, a hatred of retail, a hatred of insurance.
  People working in this building who work with our government 
employees, their staff is government employees, apparently felt: Well, 
I think those hardworking people in government, they ought to be 
offered a tremendous benefit that people who don't work for the 
government don't get. We are going to find a way to forgive the 
people's loans if they are the nice, noble people who work for 
government. And if they are somebody who, say, works for a 
manufacturer--which is so important for the country--well, we don't 
care about those people. We hate those people.
  The next message in our loan forgiveness policy is the dislike of 
people who don't go to college. One of my goals in the legislature--
which I think I am succeeding at a little bit--is educating people 
about all the good, necessary jobs we have in our country that don't 
require a 4-year college degree.
  Recently, The Wall Street Journal pointed out--I am told--that if you 
are a plumber and compare your lifelong earnings to someone who is a 
general practitioner, it is about the same. We so desperately need more 
people in the

[[Page H8053]]

trades. We so desperately need more people who are skilled in the 
manufacturing field.
  But what do we do here?
  We turn around and put them or their children in greater debt with 
this loan forgiveness program or it will likely drive up insurance more 
with the loan forgiveness program that is going to cost over $300 
billion a year.
  We benefit the people who go to college. We treat the people who 
don't go to college like dirt: No, you are not getting anything, 
inflation is going to go up and hurt you because we have to give money 
to the people who went to college.
  The next bad message that it sends is, I think it is discriminating 
against the hardworking.
  I ran into somebody recently, heard about somebody who got a nice job 
out of college, but with pride he said he was going to work extra hard 
and pay off that student loan. So he got a job as an Uber driver and he 
got a job as a bartender. I am sure between them both he was working 
well over 60, 65 hours a week but he was proud to pre-pay that student 
loan.
  And what does the government say to somebody who works especially 
hard and pays off their student loan?
  Sucker. We are going to give the same benefit to someone who didn't 
work that second or third job.
  Again, you are eating away at the moral fiber of America.
  The next group is the frugal. I always thought it was wise to be 
frugal, wise to be debt-free, pay off that debt before you take out 
your credit card and buy a fancier car or buy more furniture or buy a 
fancy vacation or something. But we look at the people who are frugal 
and use their frugality to pay off their student loan. Again, we say: 
Sucker, you shouldn't have paid off your student loan. The government 
will pay off the student loan for somebody who wasn't as frugal, and we 
consider you kind of foolish for being frugal.
  And the final thing I would point out is that under the proposed 
forgiveness by President Biden, we give out twice the forgiveness if 
you originally took out Pell grants.
  Now, one of the problems I have talked about with the Pell grants in 
the past is that it is easier to get a Pell grant if you are not 
married, which probably isn't a good thing, but that is the way it is.
  Now, you already get the benefit of the Pell Grant for not being 
married in the first place. Now we double the amount of loan 
forgiveness if you wind up originally getting this additional boost 
with the Pell grant.
  So, again, it is sending the wrong message to people. In addition to 
the fact that it is another $360 billion log on the fire of inflation. 
And then people will pretend they don't know where inflation came from. 
But when the Treasury is spending 360 billion bucks, that is where the 
inflation came from.
  The next thing I am going to address is what is going on at the 
border. And as I mentioned before, this is another topic that the press 
underreports.
  Earlier this week, one more time, we had the information come out on 
the number of people who came across the border in August. It varies 
from month to month, between 140,000 and 180,000 people crossing the 
border. But that is just totally inappropriate. It makes a mockery of 
our immigration laws to people who are doing it right.

  We know that some of these people, after all, had to break the law to 
come here, and are going to be disproportionately in a situation in 
which they have to take advantage of the public benefits of this 
country. And we don't know whether they have been adequately blended 
into America, think like Americans, think with the self-reliance that 
Americans should have. I don't think any serious country believes in 
open borders, except for we do here.
  In addition to the obvious problem of the adults coming here, we 
have--depending on the month--about 10,000 unaccompanied minors coming 
here to be dropped off, presumably at relatives, somebody or other. I 
don't know where the press is that always worries about broken 
families, when our open borders results in 9,000 or 10,000 people, who 
at least claim to be minors, without a parent around.
  The next problem, a humanitarian problem, when you have such a huge 
number of people crossing the border, people die coming over the 
border. The last time I was down on the border, they found two bodies 
of people around San Diego and the Pacific Ocean. We were told it was 
more common to find bodies on the Mexican side of the border. We hear 
about people dehydrating to death in the Arizona desert. We hear about 
people drowning in the Rio Grande.
  Nevertheless, these things are not talked about. They are an 
inevitable consequence of sending a message to people all around the 
globe that we don't care what happens at the border.
  Another problem is, depending on the person, they frequently are 
charged $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 to come here. Who is benefiting by 
this?
  The Border Patrol believes that the drug cartels are right now making 
more money smuggling people across the border than they do selling 
drugs.
  So what is the effect of the drug cartels making more money? It gives 
them even more of a stranglehold on our southern neighbor, Mexico, 
which is quickly becoming more and more of a narco State.
  I think part of that is our fault in America for having too many 
people consume drugs that are snuck in across the southern border. But 
some of the fault also has to lie in this open-door policy pursued by 
the Biden administration as the Mexican drug cartels get wealthier and 
wealthier and wealthier.
  Another thing to point out is we are not inappropriate otherwise as 
far as letting people in this country. Depending on the year, we have 
over 800,000 new people sworn in as American citizens. That is 
certainly very generous, particularly when compared to other countries. 
Meanwhile, we have a situation in which we are encouraging people to 
come here right now.
  Madam Speaker, 65 percent of the bursts of illegal immigrants are 
people on Medicaid, which would indicate that it is still a greater 
burden on our budget to have more people come here.
  The American Medical Association points out the huge number of 
illegals who show up in emergency rooms. Of course, as a practical 
matter, they are in charge of this if something passes through to the 
other people who are paying for their medical care. But, again, we have 
to say one of the reasons for the spiraling costs of medical care in 
this country is people who show up in the emergency rooms and don't 
pay. That would be illegals.
  I recently talked to someone who operates a free clinic in my 
district. And they told me that a significant number of the people that 
they deal with at the free clinic are people here illegally.
  This could become even greater if eventually President Biden gets his 
dream--it could very easily happen if the elections go away. I don't 
want to have them go away--in which we give Pell grants to people who 
come here illegally which results in close to a free college education 
that the American middle class doesn't get. But apparently an 
inducement to have more people come here is we are going to give Pell 
grants to people who come here illegally.
  I hope that the American press corps pays more attention to the 
numbers introduced earlier this week, as far as the number of people 
who came here illegally in August. It should be a banner headline. It 
will be a permanent change in America when over 150,000 people come 
here.
  And I should point out that as more people come here, it doesn't mean 
we are kicking out more people who break our laws. At the same time, we 
are deporting only about a quarter of the number of people who 
President Trump was deporting for breaking the law. So we are, in 
essence, allowing more people who are criminally prone to come into 
this country.
  The next issue I want to talk about that the press should be paying 
attention to: I recently talked to someone who claims that in the 
military, where they had required vaccines, we have recently heard of 
increases in miscarriages, cancer, blood clots, neurological 
complications, and deaths.
  I would hope the press would dig into this, make some freedom of 
information requests. If it really is true, as my friend tells me, that 
there is an increase in medical problems at the same time that our 
military was required to get the vaccine, it is something we should 
know not only for the benefit of the military but the rest of America 
as well.
  I haven't seen this being adequately covered given the huge amount of

[[Page H8054]]

money we are putting in these vaccines, as well as the fact that we are 
encouraging children to get these vaccines. I would hope that a lot of 
attention is being paid to the effect of vaccines on the primarily 
young military population, and a population that is generally in shape.
  The next thing that not only the press should be paying attention to 
but, quite frankly, the business lobbyists should be paying attention 
to is something called the PRO Act.
  The PRO Act passed the House of Representatives two terms in a row. 
It is being held up in the Senate right now only because of the 
filibuster rule. Depending upon what happens in the elections in 
November, one could easily see the PRO Act become law.

                              {time}  1800

  The American public does not know what is in the PRO Act. Lobbyists 
in this building, who should know better, don't know about the PRO Act. 
We are very close to changing the labor laws in this country where you 
can wind up having an election to unionize with only 14 days' advance 
notice. These elections would take place with an open ballot. You fill 
out your ballot, and people can know how you vote. If it is perceived 
that the management team did something untoward during the election, 
the labor relations board can deem there to be a union, even though 
nobody even voted to be unionized.
  It can create a situation in which different franchisees can be 
lumped together, and even though no employees in one location want to 
unionize, they can be forced into a union.
  It would be a fundamental change in the way we do business in this 
country. I have nothing against people who belong to a union, but this 
would overwhelmingly shift the bias toward forcing people to join a 
union when they don't necessarily want to. It is something our business 
groups, whatever association it is, should familiarize themselves with 
and make sure their members know what could very easily happen.
  I also think the PRO Act has been very underpublicized by our press 
corps. If it turns out in January that we begin down a process of mass 
unionization and we go down a path in which all employees' numbers have 
to be turned over--their address, their email address, their phone 
number--without their say so, the American public ought to know what 
they are voting for in November.
  I don't believe the press corps in this country has adequately 
explained to both management, employees, everybody, how close we are to 
that PRO Act becoming law. Everybody ought to know it. I think it would 
be devastating for American business, particularly American business 
that has to compete abroad, if the PRO Act were to pass. But if it 
passes, I bet very few people will understand what effect this election 
has on it.
  There is another significant bill that is being held back only 
because of the filibuster rule in the Senate. Even though this bill 
passed this session, the average American does not know how close we 
are to this becoming law. I speak about the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act.
  In this act, both for the purpose of censuses and other government 
forms, American citizens and American children will be asked to declare 
a sexual preference or sexual identity, be it bisexual, be it binary, 
be it transgender, what-have-you. I think this is highly offensive. 
There was a time when the gay rights movement meant we weren't supposed 
to ask what people do in bed. Now, it is going to be the government's 
business, and you are going to be asked to declare your sexual 
preference, which by itself is outlandish.
  But just as outlandish is this declaring goes all the way down to 
kids who are 7 or 6 or 5 years old. Now, there the form may be filled 
out by parents or by a teacher. It includes forms other than just the 
census, forms that school districts are required to fill out.
  Nevertheless, I think it is a fundamental change in America that we 
are going to be collecting data on sexual preferences from any age 
group. Outlandish for age 5; outlandish for age 12. But this, to me, is 
a fundamental change in the way America operates, and the information 
that people are supposed to turn over to the government is a 
fundamental change.
  I would be surprised if one out of 300 Americans knew we are so close 
to making that requirement in the United States. I hope that our 
slumbering press corps--I don't mean to refer to them that way--but I 
hope that the average American knows how close we are to that bill 
becoming law.
  The next issue that I think we ought to look at a little bit concerns 
the continued effort to claim we have a huge racism problem in this 
country. I do not believe we have a racism problem in the country. The 
easiest way to see that is when you look and see how well the 
immigrants who just come here are able to do, despite the fact that 
many of the immigrants who come here don't even know English.
  I have recently spoken to people from the Hmong community, from the 
Indian community, and from the Filipino community, and all of them are 
so happy to be in America and think America is the land of opportunity, 
that people do so well in America.
  I talked to a Hmong individual recently, and he had between himself, 
his children, and his siblings' children, about 30 children or nieces 
or nephews. Every one of them is thriving in America. Nobody has broken 
any laws. They all have decent jobs. They are educated in one fashion 
or another. These are people who came here from an entirely different 
culture. Many were not Christian. Their parents or grandparents did not 
know English when they came here, but they thrive in America.
  I have been talking to some Indian immigrants, and they say how 
wonderful the opportunity is here. Again, I talked to somebody recently 
who came here, didn't know any English. He had to start out as a 
dishwasher. He worked his way up and is doing fantastically well in 
America. The fact that he is of Indian heritage had no effect on him 
whatsoever, and he couldn't think of any way in which he had been 
discriminated against. Same thing is true with somebody from the 
Philippines.
  But what do we get here out of Washington? We get Joe Biden talking 
about we have to pass a bill--I will talk about in a second--we have to 
make it easier to sue police, in part, because we perceive the police 
are prejudiced.
  We continue to promote the Black Lives Matter movement, which is 
built on the lie that we have a huge problem with racist police in this 
country. But nevertheless, we coddle them, people give them money, and 
they are treated with respect.
  In our election law, we are told we have to get rid of photo ID, 
something that many other countries have, because it is racist to 
require photo ID. That is some horrible slander that Joe Biden has 
against the people of this country.
  I would ask that the press begin to treat these claims of racism a 
little more skeptically. I think they should ask people details when 
they claim racism is a big problem, because it is not without harm. I 
think it causes people to walk around with a chip on their shoulder. I 
think that it causes unnecessary divisions in Americans. I think 
America has been a melting pot my whole life and well before I was 
born.

  People come here from all around the globe. I should point out that 
insofar as there are ethnic problems, they are frequently greater in 
other countries. That is one thing that people from India pointed out 
to me, that there are problems between different religious groups or 
ethnic groups in India in which people even get killed. There is 
nothing like that in the United States.
  It is time the politicians of this building, rather than trying to 
take political advantage of the grievances that they try to bring up, 
they should tell people that anybody who works hard in America has an 
opportunity to succeed and that that is something they can be proud of 
about of America. They can just use their common sense.
  If you are down at the border, the people who come here, come here 
from all around the globe, because they know that despite the fact they 
might not know the native language, despite the fact that they don't 
have a job lined up when they get here--whether you are coming here 
from Peru or Cuba or Ecuador or Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, anywhere--you 
are going to be better off in the United States. Not Christian, not 
northern European, not European at all, you are still going to be 
better off in the United States.
  So many immigrants have told me there is unlimited opportunity in the

[[Page H8055]]

United States. That is why they are here. One of the major reasons, I 
think, why some people don't succeed in taking advantage of that 
opportunity is because they are told by opportunistic politicians that 
America is a racist country and you cannot succeed in America.
  The final comment that I think the press should be picking up going 
into the election cycle is a law that right now has passed the House 
twice but has only not passed the Senate because of the filibuster 
rule, which could change with a shift in just two votes in the U.S. 
Senate, is the law making it easier to sue police.
  There are a variety of reasons why crime has gone up so dramatically 
in this country in the last 2 years, and there is no question that part 
of it is we are not adequately funding our police departments. But even 
more than that, we are not speaking positively about police. Now, we 
have a bill out there making it easier to sue police if they handcuff 
somebody or if they wrestle with somebody.
  This rhetoric from politicians and also this proposed law causes 
police, I think, to be very reluctant to physically engage somebody, 
very reluctant to be aggressive. As a result, we have in Milwaukee, the 
city of my birth, and many other urban cities, including Washington and 
Baltimore, right up the freeway, dramatic increases in the number of 
homicides. It didn't just happen. It happened, in part, because of 
rhetoric from politicians tearing down police, encouraging lack of 
respect for the law.
  The final highlight of this drive to dislike police could easily 
happen in January when we get rid of the limited immunity that police 
currently have if they have to engage someone. It would dramatically 
change policing, make it more difficult to find police, and make it 
easier to sue police.
  I hope our press corps pays special attention to these laws, which 
did not pass out of this Congress, but passed only out of the House. 
But if there is a slight shift in the partisan makeup in January, they 
could easily become law. The American citizens ought to know about 
these laws before they go to vote in November. I am afraid they are not 
going to know it, because they are not adequately covered by our 
slumbering journalists.
  I ask one more time that they pay attention to laws related to 
racism; laws related to suing police; laws related to the LGBTQI+ Data 
Inclusion Act, in which they go around and try to collect data on 
sexual preferences from all Americans; and the PRO Act, in which we, I 
think, just shamefully tip the balance of the scales toward forcing 
people to become members of a union.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________